Re: [PATCH 0/10] Add yaffs2 file system: Fifth patchset

[Mark Brown]

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 01:55:04PM +1300, Ryan Mallon wrote:
> On 02/18/2011 01:43 PM, Mark Brown wrote:

> > That'd be the tracepoints I was mentioning, then...

> Are you suggesting that the yaffs_trace function should be replaced with
> tracepoints?

Not really.  I'm suggesting that the useful callers might well be best
replaced by tracepoints.

> yaffs_trace is basically just a wrapper around printk, which I suggested
> should be replaced with pr_debug so that it can be compiled out
> completely. Other drivers and filesystems have similar custom debugging
> functions.

> I haven't used tracepoints, but it seems like they are better suited to
> tracing specific events than as a general printk style debugging
> replacement?

Yup, but often things that are being traced by printk() debugging can
usefully be converted to tracepoints.  I'm not sure exactly what people
use this logging for but some of the YAFFS_TRACE_MTD type trace which
logs interactions with the hardware seems like a good candidate for
example.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/